The Florida Supreme Court ruled the state's election code does not pre-empt local laws Thursday in a voting machine dispute that traces its origins to the Florida recount that decided the 2000 presidential race.

The state banned punch-card voting that had slowed the recount with its hanging and pregnant "chads." Some counties adopted touch screen machines, but they also drew objections because they lacked paper records.

Local voters approved a Sarasota County charter amendment that outlawed touch screen machines in 2008. The state also banned the machines, but it appealed - claiming state law pre-empted the amendment.

The justices unanimously disagreed on that legal point and on a 5-1 vote upheld a provision banning the touch screens and establishing procedures for paper ballot voting.

The high court, though, stuck down a second provision for postelection ballot auditing that directly conflicted with state law. Justice R. Fred Lewis dissented on that issue.

Thomas D. Shults, a lawyer for the Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, which conducted a petition drive to put the charter amendment on the ballot, acknowledged the auditing provision was a "close issue," but he was pleased with rest of the ruling.

"It has a huge precedential value because it confirms the power of the people at the local level to ensure the accuracy of elections," Shults said.

Jennifer Krell-Davis, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Kurt Browning, disagreed. Browning, who oversees elections, joined county officials in challenging the amendment.

"We don't foresee any broad practical implications," Krell-Davis said.

She said Browning was most worried about the auditing provision and that part of the case went his way.

The portion left standing also requires random audits comparing hand and machine counts of ballots. Shults said that "will avoid a lot of speculation regarding close election results."

A trial judge initially upheld the amendment. A split three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected it, ruling there was an implied pre-emption in state law.

"To the contrary, the election code specifically delegates certain responsibilities and powers to local authorities," wrote Chief Justice Peggy Quince. She noted those powers include choosing voting systems from a list approved by the state.

Optical scanners now are used throughout Florida to read paper ballots since touch screens were outlawed. That made Sarasota's ban a moot issue, but the appeal court certified its implied pre-emption finding to the Supreme Court as a question of great public importance.

Dissenting Justice Ricky Polston argued both parts of the amendment conflict with state law even if not pre-empted. Justice Charles Canady did not participate in the ruling.